New directions in Russian international studies: pluralization, Westernization, and isolationism

Abstract

The essay argues that Western scholars can improve their understanding of the post-Soviet Russia by studying the discipline of new Russian international relations (IR). The other objective of the essay is to move away from the excessively West-centered IR scholarship by exploring indigenous Russian perceptions and inviting a dialogue across the globe. The essay identifies key trends in Russian IR reflective of the transitional nature of Russia’s post-Soviet change. It argues that Russian IR continues to be in a stage of ideological and theoretical uncertainty, which is a result of unresolved questions of national identity. For describing Russia’s identity crisis, the authors employ Erving Goffman’s concept of stigma defined as a crisis of a larger social acceptance by Russia’s ‘‘significant other’’ (West). The essay suggests that, until this crisis is resolved, much of Russian IR debates can be understood in terms of a search for a national idea. It also introduces the authors of the issue and summarizes their contribution to our understanding of Russian and Western IR.

Continuity and change: (re)constructing environmental geographies in late Soviet and post‐Soviet Russia

“…Many borders – territorial and ideological – that previously discouraged international communication have disintegrated, but isolation of people and places in Russia may be increasing. Some Anglophone Russia scholars note the growing isolation of Russian geographers (Shaw, personal communication) and other academics (Buck‐Morss 2000; Tsygankov and Tsygankov 2004). Buck‐Morss conveys that…”

A typology of homegrown theorizing

“…For example, they point to the importance of international institutions and a non-unipolar world as a means to achieve peace, 62 they emphasize the risks of globalization, while not denying the opportunities associated, and argue that the democratization process must reflect local conditions. 63 In a similar vein, Kuznetsov builds on Toynbee's and more recently Huntington's theory of "clash of civilizations," in his theory of "grammatological geopolitics." 64 While Huntington's theory proposes that the potential zones of conflict run along the fault lines of nine largely denominational civilizations, Kuznetsov's grammatological geopolitics defines civilizations in terms of the alphabets the nations use and argues that a more accurate prediction of conflicts can be attained by the resulting fault lines.…”

Widening the World of IR: A Typology of Homegrown Theorizing

“…For example, they point to the importance of international institutions and a non-unipolar world as a means to achieve peace, 80 they emphasize the risks of globalization, while not denying the opportunities associated, and argue that the democratization process must reflect local conditions. 81 In a similar vein, Kuznetsov builds on Toynbee's and more recently Huntington's theory of "clash of civilizations," in his theory of "grammatological geopolitics". 82 While Huntington's theory proposes that the potential zones of conflict run along the fault lines of nine largely denominational civilizations, Kuznetsov's grammatological geopolitics defines civilizations in terms of the alphabets the nations use and argues that a more accurate prediction of conflicts can be attained by the resulting fault lines.…”